Rank the Allied Heavy Bombers 1939 to 1944

[syscom3]

It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...

And what is the purpose of a bomber? To drop bombs and destroy the target. If the target is destroyed, then the aircraft has performed its role. If not, then it was a waste of time and material.

 

[GrauGeist]

And what is the purpose of a bomber? To drop bombs and destroy the target. If the target is destroyed, then the aircraft has performed its role. If not, then it was a waste of time and material.

True enough...but there has to be some consideration about durability.

I have to think that at some point, a bomber stops being effective if it becomes a liability more than an asset.

 

[Glider]

I can see the qualities of the Lanc as far as payload goes, but in the case of being attacked by a determined enemy, how does it stack up against the B-17's ability to absorbe damage and remain airworthy?

It seems to me that that a huge portion of the quality of a machine is it's ability to bring it's crew back from it's mission. A well trained crew is a valuable asset that cannot be easily replaced...

I don't know about the B17 but the Lancaster had the same loss ratio as the B24 on similar daylight raids with its markedly smaller defensive guns. Its more than just the guns the tactics differed. The USAAF used to stay in formation and slug it out. RAF heavy bombers on daylight missions flew in similar formations the the aircraft under attack was encouraged to evade within the formation often diving underneath the formation. The idea being to make a more difficult target and bring the fighter into the arc of fire of other bombers.

But the cookie was an air-pressure bomb and could not penetrate very well. It was great for areal bombing cities, but not very suitable for destroying bridges, bunkers, heavy machinery. You would be surprised by the amount of damage such a bomb would do on these machines (not as much as you would think). Roofs are usually easily repaired and usually factories were up and running at 100% capacity within a few weeks after a US attack.

This is not backed up by experience as outlined in the USAAF Bombing Survey which reviewed the effect of the bombing campaign. Very briefly the larger number of smaller bombs tended to destroy the items that support the manufacturing process but to totally destroy the machinery, against which the bigger boms were more effective. Going from memory, there was an example of an electrical station which had been bombed a number of times by the USAAF and it had been knocked out for short periods as things such as power links, utilities, water supplies had been damaged by the bombing but were fairly easy to repair but the generators and other heavy machinery were untouched as they were in protected buildings. A Halifax raid totally destroyed these key piesces of equipment with their 4,000lb cookies and it was never repaired

 

[Watanbe]

The Halifax is my favourite, but I just can't go past the Lancaster. We have debated on here many times the effectiveness of defensive armament at night and I think the Lancaster had enough for its role. It was a superb plane to fly and had an excellent payload and the ability to carry a variety of different ordnance.

 

[Hop]

Lancasters in Bomber Command dropped an average of 10,065 lbs of bombs per aircraft that bombed, 9,186 lbs per aircraft despatched.

The heavy bombers of the 8th AF dropped 5,199 lbs of bombs per aircraft that bombed, 4,293 lbs per aircraft despatched.

The price of sacrificing bomb load for protection is that you have to fly twice as many sorties.

 

[seesul]

I´ve seen a lots of discussions about the bombers like this and not on this forum only which never got to an end. Why?

From my point of view the most important charactericts of the bomber were:
- payload
- ability to protect itself when attacked (number and the quality of the own guns)
- ability to resist the damage
- flight range

Looking at these aspects no one was the best. Just comparing Lib, Fort or Lanc each of them had its strong and weak sides.

But I just love B-17.

 

[Watanbe]

Agreed Seesul, every plane is produced with comprises and the US and UK bombers have different advantages.

 

[B-17engineer]

I don't know about the B17 but the Lancaster had the same loss ratio as the B24 on similar daylight raids with its markedly smaller defensive guns. Its more than just the guns the tactics differed. The USAAF used to stay in formation and slug it out. RAF heavy bombers on daylight missions flew in similar formations the the aircraft under attack was encouraged to evade within the formation often diving underneath the formation. The idea being to make a more difficult target and bring the fighter into the arc of fire of other bombers.

So the B-17 was better at flying formation?

Because surely with a Lancaster with no belly guns or waist guns you'll tell them to dive, alone?

 

[Glider]

So the B-17 was better at flying formation?

Because surely with a Lancaster with no belly guns or waist guns you'll tell them to dive, alone?

Taking the points one at a time

A) No the B17 was better armed to defend itself and the tactics used by the USAAF were to slug it out. I am sure there was little if anything between them in handling. I don't remember there being any problems on the dam buster raids in bombing at 60 ft almost to the inch, at night, down a valley, with mountain tops the other side. So I am confident that formation flying wouldn't be a problem.

B) In brief Yes I would as the idea was to make the initial shots from the fighter less accurate, and the first shots have always been the most accurate right back to Napoleonic days.
Plus you didn't comment on the whole posting. The second idea was to lure the fighter into the fire of other bombers by diving, because that gives you the speed and go under the formation, not away from the formation.

Any four engined bomber on its own was in serious trouble.

Interestingly this was also the tactic used by RAF medium bombers in 2 Group. Here the Bostons and B25's were taught to evade and corkscrew if attacked, not stay in formation and fight it out. It should be rembered that the Corkscrew was a standard evasive method for Lancasters as well.

 

[Njaco]

No chance for the He 177? Besides the dicey engines, I thought it handled a few duties fairly well.

I'm torn between the -17 and the Lanc. Both excellent machines, performing their duties fantastically but I'm leaning towards the Lanc because I think it had a few more "special" missions which it accomplished than the Fortress. Both are very equal and like Roman says, there really is no end to this discussion!

 

[Colin1]

I am not deriding anything

just pointing out that different tactics wound up with different solutions and to criticize a night bomber for not having day bomber guns seems a bit unfair

Don't misunderstand my comment
I wasn't suggesting that you personally were being derisory; I was recalling the manner in which some historians regard US daylight bombing doctrine.

That is very true but it works in reverse, criticising a daylight bomber for not carrying a night bomber's payload is equally unfair - they're tooled up for different fights.

The best measure of the Lancaster and Flying Fortress debate would be addressed by the question 'how would each bomber fare at the other bomber's job'?

 

[Shortround6]

The best measure of the Lancaster and Flying Fortress would be addressed by the question 'how would each bomber fare at the other bomber's job'?

I think you could modify a Lancaster to be a day bomber easier than you could modify a B-17 to be a night bomber.

Adding waist guns shouldn't be that big a deal. Changing turrets to mount twin .50 s(or changing TO turrets that mount twin .50s ) shouldn't be that hard either. It was done near the end. putting in a belley turret shouldn't be that hard either. It did have one once althought the H2S radar tended to go where the turret was. Granted you now can't put as many bombs in the bombbay and still get off the ground but here is where the problem comes in.

You can pull some of the guns from a B-17. Say the nose turret. You can pull the waist guns and gunners and the radio operators gun. you could even pull the belly turret and loose 700-800 lbs of ammo to boot.
But you are stuck with a bomb bay that was designed when 750-1000hp engines were considered high power. Without a redesgn of the fuselage/bombbay you just don't have the volume in the fuselage to carry large bombs or large numbers of medium bombs.
You might be able to redesign the fuel system to carry more fuel for better range though.

The older B-17 design may not have been as aerodynamically effecient either.

 

[Colin1]

The older B-17 design may not have been as aerodynamically efficient either

Some of the pilots of the newer B-17 design balked at the prospect of hauling that motorised chin turret into the plane's drag factor

 

[FLYBOYJ]

As far as heavy bomber, I went with the Lancaster. Bomb load, altitude and room for electronics IMO put it ahead of the rest of the pack. On the down side, tail wheel configuration, light on defensive armament and although enough couldn't be said about the Merlin that powered most of them, it was an inline carrying an additional liquid (coolant) that could leak and cause eventual engine failure.

The B-24 was the massed produced "pick up truck" that allowed deployment quickly. Its negatives include a weak NLG and questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves). Early models used Curtiss Electric propellers that could be problematic. With the B-24 being a "pickup truck" it quickly disappeared from the USAAF once the war was over.

B-17 was the sweetheart because of its flying abilities and IMO somewhat over rated when you consider the production and deployment of the B-24, but there is no doubt the B-17 was more "survivable."

 

[RAF Liberators]

Curtiss Electric propellers were on on a very limited number of early B-24's
Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it. The end of WWII spelt the end of the prop powered bombers (for the most part) and the dawn of the jet age.
What do you mean by questionable internal systems (fuel transfer valves)? Do you mean the manual transfer pump or something else?
By the way can someone tell me if the Lancaster have self sealing tanks?

 

[syscom3]

Due to the nature of "night fighting", the Lancs defensive setup was probably good enough for the circumstances.

If the B24 were converted to night ops, then only six or so .50's would be needed. And thats only because the upper and rear turrets were designed for that size gun.

 

[syscom3]

.....
Yes it disapeared fast because other superior equipment like the B-29 was available and not because there was anything particularly wrong with it.

The PB4Y and B32 were superior to the B24, let alone the B29.

by 1945, the B24 was a dated design that had strong points and weak points. It was removed from service so quickly because it had run its course in design and there was little that could be done to improve it.

 

[Marcel]

This is not backed up by experience as outlined in the USAAF Bombing Survey which reviewed the effect of the bombing campaign. Very briefly the larger number of smaller bombs tended to destroy the items that support the manufacturing process but to totally destroy the machinery, against which the bigger boms were more effective. Going from memory, there was an example of an electrical station which had been bombed a number of times by the USAAF and it had been knocked out for short periods as things such as power links, utilities, water supplies had been damaged by the bombing but were fairly easy to repair but the generators and other heavy machinery were untouched as they were in protected buildings. A Halifax raid totally destroyed these key piesces of equipment with their 4,000lb cookies and it was never repaired

Ah, thanks Glider (throws book out of the window). But things like the Bieleveld viaduct and U-boat pens is another matter I suppose?

 

[B-17engineer]

There is still a chance of an attack from underneath any which way you put it.

 

[RAF Liberators]

The PB4Y and B32 were superior to the B24, let alone the B29.

by 1945, the B24 was a dated design that had strong points and weak points. It was removed from service so quickly because it had run its course in design and there was little that could be done to improve it.

For once I actually agree with you